Political/social philosophy of ANUS members

There is good coercion and then there is bad coercion. Just think of education as an example. However, if by coercion you imply deception, yours is a rather normal standpoint if you ask me.

I'm not quite sure in what sense education is coercive. I don't see how education per se is coercive, but I suspect that you didn't even mean to suggest that anyway. Certainly things like compulsory attendance laws are coercive, but those generally apply only to those we consider to be children, and I consider children to occupy a different moral category. That is not something I have thought a lot about, though.

I should make it clear that when I discuss political philosophy, I use the term 'coercive' in a very restricted sense, referring primarily to physical coercion and secondarily to fraud. But of course there are various ways of coercing somebody.

How about defense against Virtue Ethicists, Moral Skeptics, or Moral Nihilists?

Good questions. Regarding virtue ethicists, I'm not sure what to say. Virtue ethics is beyond any sort of expertise I have and I only have a very basic understanding of it. I guess I would need to know specifically how somebody might object to libertarian views on virtue ethical grounds. I do know that there is a growing literature dealing with the idea of generating libertarian or classical liberal views from virtue ethical premises, but I have no familiarity with that stuff.

Regarding moral skeptics and moral nihilists, it seems like those people don't really want to play the game that I want to play, so to speak. I'm not sure how to argue about these matters with somebody who disagrees with me in such a fundamental way. When you're arguing about political philosophy with somebody, moral realism/non-skepticism is taken for granted. If I wanted to convince such a person to adopt my views without arguing metaethics, I would probably appeal to something that we both value and ask "How can we both come to a rational decision for organizing the social and political in such a way that it optimally promotes our shared value?" Of course, such a person can say something like, "Well, since morality is completely without basis/we have no moral knowledge, I don't have to care about promoting anybody's interests besides mine, so go fuck yourself." In that case we would either have to start arguing metaethics or stop the game entirely.

On the other hand, if the moral skeptic/nihilist wants to articulate and defend some alternative political or social arrangement, then he or she has to speak the ethical language; the only way to avoid it in that context is by obfuscating. In this case we just asses the moral arguments the best way we can (which is a vexed issue, to be sure).

Quote

Also, do you mean Consequentialism or, more specifically, Utilitarianism? Finally, do you mean Act or Rule Consequentialism?

More good questions. Regarding the first one, yes, I guess I mean utilitarianism broadly construed as a thesis about individual well-being. If somebody wants me to argue for my views on the grounds that they promote some kind of Nietzschean ideal or Heavy Metal Romanticism or whatever, I don't think I can do that.

Regarding the second question, given that what we're talking about are general rules for the regulation of society, a consequentialist defense of probably any given political philosophy would most naturally seem to be better supported on rule consequentialist grounds. I don't see how libertarianism could be supported at all on act consequentialist grounds, and if I were a consequentialist I certainly would not be an act consequentialist. Rule consequentialism has its own problems as well, though.

Regime: slightly-Authoritarian / Collectivist society, with electoral Aristocracy.Economic system: Some sort of "small business" capitalism, or "artisan-ship" exchange market, with a centralized body inspecting economical enterprises to prevent certain things from happening (Facebook, for example).Values: Moral codes precede "grand" individualist allurements taking their toll socially and culturally. Call it virtue-ethics. As I see it: Conservatism (conversing societal / communal values) really means "morality" which leads to a better "social order" [historically, a possible negative side effect is ignorance]. Liberalism or libertarianism means "individuality" which means "atomized relativism" which leads to decay (this is how I interpret Platonic political theory). Individuals can be a-moralist, since they can believe their are detached from society and thus place themselves beyond ethics. A People have no such privilege, if there's a a body to enforce laws and instill moral strictness - they do as they are told or are inclined to act in a certain way collectively, towards a common goal. I believe it is authoritarian, to a certain extent. Nonetheless, from a moral / ethical perspective - I believe it is best, as I do not believe in humans as individuals.My premise is that morality is needed for us, as humans, to survive and thrive collectively. Thus, any philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty is potentially paradoxical and harmful as it is, in fact, not really concerning morality - but includes moral statements as addendum to their core arguments.

In general: I think all political systems are incomplete and can never really pertain to be rational in any way. Any theory we may offer will, at some point, be revealed in all its slippery faultiness. It seems one prevalent view in our time is that "rationality" is making what good for you, as a private agent and materialism / monetary attitude will get you far on the scale of rationality. Political systems based on private economical interests aren't exactly rational, as some people may think. I think this state is merely a privilege of high civilization and the modern world, and when the liberty of the privileged becomes an excessive-obsessive occupation with wealth and such - it comes on the expanse of morality and social order.

I'm not quite sure in what sense education is coercive. I don't see how education per se is coercive, but I suspect that you didn't even mean to suggest that anyway. Certainly things like compulsory attendance laws are coercive, but those generally apply only to those we consider to be children, and I consider children to occupy a different moral category. That is not something I have thought a lot about, though.

I should make it clear that when I discuss political philosophy, I use the term 'coercive' in a very restricted sense, referring primarily to physical coercion and secondarily to fraud. But of course there are various ways of coercing somebody.

Most people (4, hoi polloi) are like children. Cf. Plato - Politeia. They must be forced to do things they would not by themselves. Take a simple thing as tidying up one's room. If you cannot "coerce" your child into this task, it will probably not do it. Of course, this is education towards virtue, but it is important education nonetheless. The situation is different with knowledge, because knowledge is normally attractive enough to make coercion superflous. Since education is not only that of the rational, but also that of the willing part of the soul, it must include an element of force, or it will be useless.So, in conclusion, even physical coercion could be justified, but fraud--never.

I'm not quite sure in what sense education is coercive. I don't see how education per se is coercive, but I suspect that you didn't even mean to suggest that anyway. Certainly things like compulsory attendance laws are coercive, but those generally apply only to those we consider to be children, and I consider children to occupy a different moral category. That is not something I have thought a lot about, though.

I should make it clear that when I discuss political philosophy, I use the term 'coercive' in a very restricted sense, referring primarily to physical coercion and secondarily to fraud. But of course there are various ways of coercing somebody.

Most people (4, hoi polloi) are like children. Cf. Plato - Politeia. They must be forced to do things they would not by themselves. Take a simple thing as tidying up one's room. If you cannot "coerce" your child into this task, it will probably not do it. Of course, this is education towards virtue, but it is important education nonetheless. The situation is different with knowledge, because knowledge is normally attractive enough to make coercion superflous. Since education is not only that of the rational, but also that of the willing part of the soul, it must include an element of force, or it will be useless.So, in conclusion, even physical coercion could be justified, but fraud--never.

I'm not quite sure in what sense education is coercive. I don't see how education per se is coercive, but I suspect that you didn't even mean to suggest that anyway. Certainly things like compulsory attendance laws are coercive, but those generally apply only to those we consider to be children, and I consider children to occupy a different moral category. That is not something I have thought a lot about, though.

I should make it clear that when I discuss political philosophy, I use the term 'coercive' in a very restricted sense, referring primarily to physical coercion and secondarily to fraud. But of course there are various ways of coercing somebody.

Most people (4, hoi polloi) are like children. Cf. Plato - Politeia. They must be forced to do things they would not by themselves. Take a simple thing as tidying up one's room. If you cannot "coerce" your child into this task, it will probably not do it. Of course, this is education towards virtue, but it is important education nonetheless. The situation is different with knowledge, because knowledge is normally attractive enough to make coercion superflous. Since education is not only that of the rational, but also that of the willing part of the soul, it must include an element of force, or it will be useless.So, in conclusion, even physical coercion could be justified, but fraud--never.

I'm not quite sure in what sense education is coercive. I don't see how education per se is coercive, but I suspect that you didn't even mean to suggest that anyway. Certainly things like compulsory attendance laws are coercive, but those generally apply only to those we consider to be children, and I consider children to occupy a different moral category. That is not something I have thought a lot about, though.

I should make it clear that when I discuss political philosophy, I use the term 'coercive' in a very restricted sense, referring primarily to physical coercion and secondarily to fraud. But of course there are various ways of coercing somebody.

Most people (4, hoi polloi) are like children. Cf. Plato - Politeia. They must be forced to do things they would not by themselves. Take a simple thing as tidying up one's room. If you cannot "coerce" your child into this task, it will probably not do it. Of course, this is education towards virtue, but it is important education nonetheless. The situation is different with knowledge, because knowledge is normally attractive enough to make coercion superflous. Since education is not only that of the rational, but also that of the willing part of the soul, it must include an element of force, or it will be useless.So, in conclusion, even physical coercion could be justified, but fraud--never.

Too bad the logic behind yours is open-ended and thus inapplicable. Maybe the poster you were poking fun at should have used simpler terminology though.

1. organizer2. bullet-catcher3. food collector4. welfare dependent

You can find that level of organization in almost any collectivist species.

Of course it is open-ended! That's why making these ridiculous abstractions are a waste of time. Let's add another one: poopsmith. So every traditional society needs someone to shovel shit. Hmm. Let's also throw in scapegoats, because the organizers need patsies to rally the masses behind. Oh, yeah, and don't forget "toilet-paper maker" as every higher civilization needs to wipe their asses.

Most people (4, hoi polloi) are like children. Cf. Plato - Politeia. They must be forced to do things they would not by themselves. Take a simple thing as tidying up one's room. If you cannot "coerce" your child into this task, it will probably not do it. Of course, this is education towards virtue, but it is important education nonetheless. The situation is different with knowledge, because knowledge is normally attractive enough to make coercion superflous. Since education is not only that of the rational, but also that of the willing part of the soul, it must include an element of force, or it will be useless.So, in conclusion, even physical coercion could be justified, but fraud--never.

Well, of course physical coercion is sometimes justified, otherwise there would be no way of justifying any kind of law and order at all. I'm not against physical coercion per se. The principle I'd want to adhere to would be something like 'No action ought to be coercively prohibited unless it is an initiation of force against somebody.' I've realized over time that fleshing out that principle is fraught with some serious difficulties, though.

I lean to the right on many issues, and have a great deal of respect for libertarian ideals, but I could also be identified as an 'ecofascist'. This causes me some difficulty, as there is a preponderance of leftists in the environmentalist community, and many libertarians either disregard or oppose any efforts at conservation. How do those who post on this forum reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions?

I amNationalist: Preserve culture and bloodline.(Stalinist) Communist: Abolish the free market. The state should monopolize the market so that everybody works for the state for a comparative wage while profits go directly to the state.Authoritarian: The state should be considered more important than religion.Ecofascist: Strict environmental guidelines. Eugenics are enforced.

Overall a high quality of life and expansion of the territories (gaining resources) would be high on my agenda if I were a true revolutionary. But I'm a philosophical nihilist and not affiliated with any political group. I'm just mentioning utopian ideals here (as requested, right?) not practical/local politics.

Hasn't most of this been tried before? Mainly Communism and authoritarianism? I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly. If people's lives are merely for the preservation of a "state" , what kind of existence is that? All you will be doing is working day in and day out with no real incentive but to make a secular organization wealthier. I think society needs at least some sort of spirituality that makes them feel a sense of awe and puts them in their place while making the transcendent a goal to work towards. Of course, this spirituality should be grounded in nature and culture. "The Earth is the truth". What I'm saying is, people need more than a state. They need to know that they can excel past their peers if they can prove themselves worthy and find themselves working towards a higher goal than "the state". Also, lets face it, NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society.

I'm totally on board with nationalism, no complaints there. Reasonable nationalism is a sign of a healthy society.

To me, just setting the bar low and have everyone make the same money is exactly what we want to avoid. That is basically egalitarianism and fake "equality". Let those who are intelligent and can create make more and reward them.

You lost credibility by stating that "NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society." There's no way that you can prove that. You're making assumptions and generalizations. The many communists organizations and literature that's out there proves you wrong, reality proves you wrong. If you really want to mess up then you should suggest now that all those communist intellectuals and activists are all kids/retards/cons/have something wrong with them/etc. You can't prove that either, it would just be even more generalizations.

I mean, come on... What kind of arguing is this? "I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly." That sounds very insecure man, plus you suggest there is evidence but don't offer any... So what do you know for sure?

Let's look at the basics: what good is an excess of wealth in an ecofascist society? There is no way you can combine a free market with ecofascism. There is no way you can run an ecofascist state and then tell people "it's ok for you to have a heated swimming pool in your backyard but not for them" or "it's ok for you to pollute the environment more than others because you are special" etc. Hence everybody would have to follow the same ecofascist rules, there's no place for luxury!

So everybody makes roughly the same amount of money. Useless people are killed. People who achieve things get status, awards, higher places in business and society. But not more money. The point is that people should work for something bigger than themselves (the state) and if that's too much trouble for them then they are untermenschen (selfish capitalists) and have no place in an ecofascist/communist society.

Religion could be used as a tool to empower the state but I feel that people who have a need to believe in irrational fairytales are undesirable too. I don't see the point in giving preachers the same power as the state (or even more power because after all religion controls "the afterlife") I'd also dare say that the communists achieved a hell of a lot more than the muslim fundamentalists did. Soviet Russia certainly had a higher quality of life than Afghanistan did under the Taliban, I'm not in favor of returning back to the stone age. And don't be fooled by an economic crisis such as in Cuba, the embargo forced by the Americans is to blame for that, not Fidel Castro or just having a communist system. If a nation has resources that the world really needs then the world will do business with them anyway regardless of their convictions and how they deal with human rights etc, just look at Saudi Arabia or China.

* Charles to Camilla, in an intercepted telephone call: "I want to feel my way along you, all over you and up and down you and in and out. Oh God, I'll just live inside your trousers or something -- it would be much easier."

* Camilla: "What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers."

I amNationalist: Preserve culture and bloodline.(Stalinist) Communist: Abolish the free market. The state should monopolize the market so that everybody works for the state for a comparative wage while profits go directly to the state.Authoritarian: The state should be considered more important than religion.Ecofascist: Strict environmental guidelines. Eugenics are enforced.

Overall a high quality of life and expansion of the territories (gaining resources) would be high on my agenda if I were a true revolutionary. But I'm a philosophical nihilist and not affiliated with any political group. I'm just mentioning utopian ideals here (as requested, right?) not practical/local politics.

Hasn't most of this been tried before? Mainly Communism and authoritarianism? I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly. If people's lives are merely for the preservation of a "state" , what kind of existence is that? All you will be doing is working day in and day out with no real incentive but to make a secular organization wealthier. I think society needs at least some sort of spirituality that makes them feel a sense of awe and puts them in their place while making the transcendent a goal to work towards. Of course, this spirituality should be grounded in nature and culture. "The Earth is the truth". What I'm saying is, people need more than a state. They need to know that they can excel past their peers if they can prove themselves worthy and find themselves working towards a higher goal than "the state". Also, lets face it, NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society.

I'm totally on board with nationalism, no complaints there. Reasonable nationalism is a sign of a healthy society.

To me, just setting the bar low and have everyone make the same money is exactly what we want to avoid. That is basically egalitarianism and fake "equality". Let those who are intelligent and can create make more and reward them.

You lost credibility by stating that "NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society." There's no way that you can prove that. You're making assumptions and generalizations. The many communists organizations and literature that's out there proves you wrong, reality proves you wrong. If you really want to mess up then you should suggest now that all those communist intellectuals and activists are all kids/retards/cons/have something wrong with them/etc. You can't prove that either, it would just be even more generalizations.

I mean, come on... What kind of arguing is this? "I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly." That sounds very insecure man, plus you suggest there is evidence but don't offer any... So what do you know for sure?

Let's look at the basics: what good is an excess of wealth in an ecofascist society? There is no way you can combine a free market with ecofascism. There is no way you can run an ecofascist state and then tell people "it's ok for you to have a heated swimming pool in your backyard but not for them" or "it's ok for you to pollute the environment more than others because you are special" etc. Hence everybody would have to follow the same ecofascist rules, there's no place for luxury!

So everybody makes roughly the same amount of money. Useless people are killed. People who achieve things get status, awards, higher places in business and society. But not more money. The point is that people should work for something bigger than themselves (the state) and if that's too much trouble for them then they are untermenschen (selfish capitalists) and have no place in an ecofascist/communist society.

Religion could be used as a tool to empower the state but I feel that people who have a need to believe in irrational fairytales are undesirable too. I don't see the point in giving preachers the same power as the state (or even more power because after all religion controls "the afterlife") I'd also dare say that the communists achieved a hell of a lot more than the muslim fundamentalists did. Soviet Russia certainly had a higher quality of life than Afghanistan did under the Taliban, I'm not in favor of returning back to the stone age. And don't be fooled by an economic crisis such as in Cuba, the embargo forced by the Americans is to blame for that, not Fidel Castro or just having a communist system. If a nation has resources that the world really needs then the world will do business with them anyway regardless of their convictions and how they deal with human rights etc, just look at Saudi Arabia or China.

* Charles to Camilla, in an intercepted telephone call: "I want to feel my way along you, all over you and up and down you and in and out. Oh God, I'll just live inside your trousers or something -- it would be much easier."

* Camilla: "What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers."

"Let's look at the basics: what good is an excess of wealth in an ecofascist society? There is no way you can combine a free market with ecofascism."

Ha, advocates for Marxism/Communism on the ANUS boards, this is rich.

"If you really want to mess up then you should suggest now that all those communist intellectuals and activists are all kids/retards/cons/have something wrong with them/etc"

Sure I can. Most of them were liberals or leftists of some shape or form. Leftism is at its very root delusional and rejects reality. Marx was a hack.

You are aware that the various Communist regimes have raped the Earth too, correct? Also, why do you seem to assume that the only real alternative to capitalism is Communism?

Fact is, Communism simply does not work on a mass scale. We have seen this on many occasions throughout history. All Communism has ever done is create misery, genocide, broken people and failed states.

People need an incentive. You cannot tell me that a doctor will want to do all of the study, work and undergo all of the stress that goes along with his job and receive the same money as a janitor. It simply will not happen.

You're not going to like this but: Money is not a bad thing. Money is not the problem. People are the problem. To fix the fact that people spend their money on shit we have to reshape our culture starting with ourselves.

Ok, I want you to take everything that is considered a luxury and get rid of it immediately. That includes your computer, car, refrigeration, heating and AC etc etc etc . Put your money where your mouth is.

--------------------------------------------------------------

As for me:

-I am a pan-nationalist. -I favor smaller, more intimate communities with an emphasis on localism and community togetherness. -Zero immigration unless you are valuable or a genius. English only. -Communities will be organized so they are largely walkable/bike-a-ble. -Nuclear power will be championed. -Leaders will be strictly appointed by a tough meritocratic system. Only the best can lead in any area. -Elected ruler with restrictions. Limited Monarchy. -Large swathes of land shall be restricted for non-use by any human. National parks will be set aside for people to use.

I amNationalist: Preserve culture and bloodline.(Stalinist) Communist: Abolish the free market. The state should monopolize the market so that everybody works for the state for a comparative wage while profits go directly to the state.Authoritarian: The state should be considered more important than religion.Ecofascist: Strict environmental guidelines. Eugenics are enforced.

Overall a high quality of life and expansion of the territories (gaining resources) would be high on my agenda if I were a true revolutionary. But I'm a philosophical nihilist and not affiliated with any political group. I'm just mentioning utopian ideals here (as requested, right?) not practical/local politics.

Hasn't most of this been tried before? Mainly Communism and authoritarianism? I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly. If people's lives are merely for the preservation of a "state" , what kind of existence is that? All you will be doing is working day in and day out with no real incentive but to make a secular organization wealthier. I think society needs at least some sort of spirituality that makes them feel a sense of awe and puts them in their place while making the transcendent a goal to work towards. Of course, this spirituality should be grounded in nature and culture. "The Earth is the truth". What I'm saying is, people need more than a state. They need to know that they can excel past their peers if they can prove themselves worthy and find themselves working towards a higher goal than "the state". Also, lets face it, NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society.

I'm totally on board with nationalism, no complaints there. Reasonable nationalism is a sign of a healthy society.

To me, just setting the bar low and have everyone make the same money is exactly what we want to avoid. That is basically egalitarianism and fake "equality". Let those who are intelligent and can create make more and reward them.

You lost credibility by stating that "NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society." There's no way that you can prove that. You're making assumptions and generalizations. The many communists organizations and literature that's out there proves you wrong, reality proves you wrong. If you really want to mess up then you should suggest now that all those communist intellectuals and activists are all kids/retards/cons/have something wrong with them/etc. You can't prove that either, it would just be even more generalizations.

I mean, come on... What kind of arguing is this? "I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly." That sounds very insecure man, plus you suggest there is evidence but don't offer any... So what do you know for sure?

Let's look at the basics: what good is an excess of wealth in an ecofascist society? There is no way you can combine a free market with ecofascism. There is no way you can run an ecofascist state and then tell people "it's ok for you to have a heated swimming pool in your backyard but not for them" or "it's ok for you to pollute the environment more than others because you are special" etc. Hence everybody would have to follow the same ecofascist rules, there's no place for luxury!

So everybody makes roughly the same amount of money. Useless people are killed. People who achieve things get status, awards, higher places in business and society. But not more money. The point is that people should work for something bigger than themselves (the state) and if that's too much trouble for them then they are untermenschen (selfish capitalists) and have no place in an ecofascist/communist society.

Religion could be used as a tool to empower the state but I feel that people who have a need to believe in irrational fairytales are undesirable too. I don't see the point in giving preachers the same power as the state (or even more power because after all religion controls "the afterlife") I'd also dare say that the communists achieved a hell of a lot more than the muslim fundamentalists did. Soviet Russia certainly had a higher quality of life than Afghanistan did under the Taliban, I'm not in favor of returning back to the stone age. And don't be fooled by an economic crisis such as in Cuba, the embargo forced by the Americans is to blame for that, not Fidel Castro or just having a communist system. If a nation has resources that the world really needs then the world will do business with them anyway regardless of their convictions and how they deal with human rights etc, just look at Saudi Arabia or China.

* Charles to Camilla, in an intercepted telephone call: "I want to feel my way along you, all over you and up and down you and in and out. Oh God, I'll just live inside your trousers or something -- it would be much easier."

* Camilla: "What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers."

"Let's look at the basics: what good is an excess of wealth in an ecofascist society? There is no way you can combine a free market with ecofascism."

Ha, advocates for Marxism/Communism on the ANUS boards, this is rich.

"If you really want to mess up then you should suggest now that all those communist intellectuals and activists are all kids/retards/cons/have something wrong with them/etc"

Sure I can. Most of them were liberals or leftists of some shape or form. Leftism is at its very root delusional and rejects reality. Marx was a hack.

You are aware that the various Communist regimes have raped the Earth too, correct? Also, why do you seem to assume that the only real alternative to capitalism is Communism?

Fact is, Communism simply does not work on a mass scale. We have seen this on many occasions throughout history. All Communism has ever done is create misery, genocide, broken people and failed states.

People need an incentive. You cannot tell me that a doctor will want to do all of the study, work and undergo all of the stress that goes along with his job and receive the same money as a janitor. It simply will not happen.

Ok, I want you to take everything that is considered a luxury and get rid of it immediately. That includes your computer, car, refrigeration, heating and AC etc etc etc . Put your money where your mouth is.

Well then the first thing I'll get rid off is your bullshit

"Ha, advocates for Marxism/Communism on the ANUS boards, this is rich. "

I clearly said I was in favor of (a version of) Stalinist communism. Not my fault that you confuse that with "zomg communism I learned about from teh movies"

Your remark also seems to suggest that "zomg guys this dude is commie scum we must all hate him because after all this is anus.com"

"You are aware that the various Communist regimes have raped the Earth too, correct?"

Even if I am aware of that it would look better on you if you came up with some examples rather than pretending you're representing some infallible truth, wouldn't it?

"Fact is, Communism simply does not work on a mass scale. We have seen this on many occasions throughout history. All Communism has ever done is create misery, genocide, broken people and failed states."

Fact is, you're a whiney little faggot and you have a big hooknose. As long as you can't prove you don't have a big hooknose I am correct. So post some pictures of yourself or you'll only be proving the undeniable fact that you have a big hooknose.

Seriously: either someone tell me how ecofascism and a free market could work together or just admit you don't have your facts straight. I'm slowly getting a feeling that I'm discussing with a bunch of brainwashed Americans who got their worldview by watching episodes of G.I. Joe and WWF wrestling.

Unsure at this point, but I'd prefer a Pan-Nationalist system that doesn't predicate itself on an attempt to hammer out some iron clad aspect of human nature as most systems we've created so far tend to do.

I think Umbrage is right: I can't say I know a whole lot about these things, but it is my instinct that a discussion like this would have to assume FIRST that Ecofascism and Free Market DON'T work together, and then go from there if you think they DO.

I think an IDEAL society would, indeed, be communist. But, of course, that society would have to be composed of near Zen-Masters with few desires. But, hey, the ideal is an ideal for a reason.

You see, the people of a society would need something else, that SO FILLED THEM UP, they didn't care about money. Take Sparta. It meant SO MUCH to be a SPARTAN, that currency paled in comparison. (I'm not positive that Sparta didn't have currency AT ALL, so I guess correct me if I'm wrong).

"You are aware that the various Communist regimes have raped the Earth too, correct?"

Even if I am aware of that it would look better on you if you came up with some examples rather than pretending you're representing some infallible truth, wouldn't it?

I don't mean to be offensive or anything, but this reply seems to suggest that you are more interested in defending your pride than seeking truth. Yeah, it would've been nice if he offered some examples to support the claim, but given the logic of his claim all you really needed to do to knock it down was to find an example of a communist regime that wasn't a bad polluter. Have you bothered to look into that? Presumably looking into this matter would be pretty illuminating for you given your concerns. And it would be pretty illuminating to determine whether communist regimes would on balance be worse polluters than capitalist regimes. You don't have to go far to find discussions of this sort. Simply google the phrase 'communism pollution' or something like that. The fact that you don't seem to have a ready reply to this concern suggests that you've arrived at your view too quickly. Also, since it is a documented fact that at least some communist regimes were really bad polluters (look it up) it might be worth examining whether that fact is the result of something inherent to communist regimes. But instead of examining any of this further you decided to remark on how this guy might go about looking better, which doesn't directly address the truth or falsity of his claim. What's the point of that?